NBA: Greatest ever at each position

[Phoenix1010]

Not really. It's just saying that for the first 80% of that season, before Jordan started putting up extraordinary numbers again, Pippen was dominating. NBA analysts do this constantly. E.g. "So and so has averaged x points and y rebounds since the allstar break, showing what a dominant player he is in this league." They do it to manipulate the stats, yes, but with a sample size as high as 65 games, it's not such a big difference.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With a superb season in 1994-95, Pippen continued to show why he is possibly the best all-around player in the NBA. Discounting the numbers put up by Michael Jordan in 17 late-season games,

[/ QUOTE ]

!!!

this is the stupidest sports argument that i ever heard! i'll let others elaborate (<--sry for that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, why?

'Scottie Pippen is nothing without Michael Jordan'
'Er, without Jordan he lead his team in 5 categories for 80% of a season, was named to the All-Star Team, yadda yadda yadda'

Yeah, stupid argument.

[RogerZBT]

C: Shaq
PF: Malone
SF: Bird
SG: Jordan
PG: O. Robertson

Magic and Barkley are off because you if you can't make the all defense second team at least once, you're not making my list.

Duncan will probably end up taking Malone's place on this list.

Wilt's off because he only had faced one real "peer" in Russell and was usually on the losing end of those matchups.

Scottie Pippen ABSOLUTELY deserves to be in the Top 50. Seven time All-star. Seven time all-Defense first team. For a few years he was Chicago's primary ball-handler. And Pippen won as many titles without Jordan as Jordan did without Pippen.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
5 Wilt (or shaq, no prob with either)
4 Larry Legend
3 Dr J
2 MJ
1 Magic

I'll take on your 5 with these five any day. I'll even toss Magic and add in Oscar Robinson

[/ QUOTE ]

good list, can't disagree with any of them

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Tom Tolbert



nh, sir.
you couldn't wait till someone caught that one, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
when you talk greatest, everyone has a different definition of "great", however, everyone almost always agrees that greatness involves changing the game. Tommy T, with Nellie's blessing, was the point forward on the Run-TMC teams, forever changing how we look at slow white guys

[Phoenix1010]

Good list. I put Duncan ahead of Malone NOW though. Duncan has averaged similar numbers, without the benefit of a HOF point guard getting him the ball. He's also the anchor of a much stronger defense, and he has two rings already.

[Phoenix1010]

No love for Hakeem yet... I think he's a great alternative to both Shaq and Wilt, in that he was dominant statistically, and he conquered all of his couterparts (including a young Shaq himself).

Looking to the future, Duncan will make this list, if he's not there already. None of the other current superstars stand a ghost of a chance. If Kobe Bryant puts together another dynasty and cleans up his flaws, he has a chance to become the number 2 shooting guard of all time, IMO.

Of the younger players, I think Lebron has a great chance to crash this list at whatever position he chooses to stick to. We will have to wait and see about Wade and Amare.

[tomahawk]

I think there's a distinct difference between making the team with the stars that deserve it the most in terms of skill and achievments, and making the team that would be best.

For instance I agree that Pippen doesn't belong on this team, but if I were to create the team that would win the most games I'd rather have him there than Bird. He just goes so well together with Jordan on both ends, adds much better peripherial(sp?) defence, and a devastating fast break. The team would have enough scorers to cover the loss in that departement imo.

Anyone agree with this? What team would be the most likely candidate to sweep a season? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Vince Young]

[ QUOTE ]
We will have to wait and see about...Amare.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uhh...no we won't.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We will have to wait and see about...Amare.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uhh...no we won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning?